The DOJ Should Step Aside and Let State Bars Regulate Attorneys

Early in 2026, the Justice Department announced its intention to shield its lawyers from disciplinary proceedings. As part of this effort, the DOJ has sued the District of Columbia Bar to prevent it from disciplining two DC-licensed Justice Department lawyers.

This effort flouts a fundamental tenet of the legal profession: Whatever prestige and prerogatives that lawyers enjoy derive from the license each lawyer must earn, not from the clients they serve. Lawyers serve the system of justice, representing saints and scoundrels alike, and are governed by rules applying to them because they’re lawyers, regardless of where and for whom they speak.

Justice Benjamin Cardozo famously said that “membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions.” Lawyers are bound to tell the truth. They must exercise independent judgment to render candid advice, even if their clients might view that advice as unpalatable.

As advocates, their duty is to honor the law, unless they can responsibly argue for changing that law. They’re admonished to disagree civilly and to respect judges and their rulings, whether they agree with them or not. Above all else, lawyers may not behave in ways calling into question their fitness to serve the administration of justice.

The focus of the DOJ lawsuit is discipline sought against two lawyers, Jeffrey Clark and Ed Martin, for actions they took as employees of President Donald Trump’s Justice Department. In sum, the complaint is that the DC Bar treated these federal employees more harshly than those not in federal service and acted to scrutinize and punish these bar members for partisan political reasons.

If the lawyers can prove these allegations of disparate treatment, and they are free of unethical behavior, there is no reason to assume that the justice system will fail to protect them.

Those ultimately responsible for determining whether professional discipline is warranted are judges of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, not employees of the District of Columbia Bar. These judges are sworn to apply the law evenly, without regard to the politics of those appearing before them.

Rules exist to assure due process and equal protection of the law. And—as if it matters—the 12 active and senior judges on the court have been appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents; the chief judge, Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, named specifically as a defendant in the Justice Department’s lawsuit, was appointed to the DC trial court by President Bill Clinton and later elevated to the Court of Appeals by President George W. Bush.

Whether one agrees with their decisions or not, these judges enjoy reputations placing them above political whim or caprice.

Disciplining high-profile attorneys for unethical conduct is an apt deterrence of misbehavior. The District of Columbia Bar isn’t unique; the licensing authorities of other jurisdictions enforce their own rules designed to safeguard the public. For example, attorneys found to have misled the public about the results of the 2020 presidential election have been disciplined in multiple states: Kenneth Chesebro and Rudy Giuliani were disbarred in New York, John Eastman was disbarred in California, and Jenna Ellis’s license was suspended in Colorado.

State bar discipline isn’t doled out to punish only lawyers serving President Trump. President Clinton was suspended from the Arkansas Bar for giving deceptive testimony at a deposition. President Richard Nixon was disbarred in New York for misconduct in the “Watergate” matter. Former Attorney General Richard Kleindienst was disciplined for misleading Congress during his confirmation hearings. Vice President Spiro Agnew was disbarred for income tax evasion.

Nor is there inordinate fervor focusing only on federal employees—former Democratic Maryland Governor Marvin Mandel was disbarred following his conviction for mail fraud and racketeering, and notable public figures acting as private sector lawyers have been sanctioned for their misdeeds. The names F. Lee Bailey and Hunter Biden come to mind.

The DOJ contends that the DC Bar’s actions undermine the president’s power as head of the executive branch. To be sure, he needs advice from his counsel. But there are ethical limits on the attorney-client relationship. For example, even confidential communications may be exposed if made in furtherance of criminal or fraudulent conduct.

Lawyers are officers of the state courts where they’re licensed. Those state courts have the responsibility to protect the public by governing and, where appropriate, disciplining their lawyers, independent of the status and power of their clients. That has been the teaching of the US Supreme Court for at least three generations.

So, to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Trust the system you have sworn to serve. If there is or has been unfair discipline of federal attorneys, let the judges find and remedy it.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Alfred F. Belcuore, an adjunct professor of trial practice at Georgetown Law, was national president of the Federal Bar Association and of the DC Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates, and has been practicing law in Washington for more than 50 years.

Interested in writing? Review our author guidelines, and submit pitches to Insights@bloombergindustry.com.